Jesus ain't God.

[Robert.Evans]

What do you think the Word of God is? What YOU say?

What the ENGLISH says? Jn 20:28

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The KOINE says? HO THEOS.

The ARAMAIC says? "the alaha?"

Note: the Aramaic is closely related to the Hebrew. The Hebrew is after all the "mother tongue" of the OT. "Alaha" means "elohim."

The "mother tongue" defns are root and basic. Jesus would have to know this, since the Temple in Jerusalem used the Hebrew.

Hint: Thomas probably spoke in Aramaic, John translates into Koine. The translation, MY ALAHA, is HO THEOS [of me]. The translation of the Koine in English is "The Lord of me and the God of me."

So then I don't diss the Bible or the scripture at all. The translational gaps are key to understanding how for instance this verse does not impede or contradict John's other Abrahamic Monotheistic verses:

Jn 20:17

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jn 5:

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

...and the much maligned and plain text of Jn 17:

This is eternal life that they believe YOU the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom YOU sent.

You are still ignoring Greek NT in English. It is you sir that said that it is written for common man to understand. Well common man has understood. He is God. That is what it says. Either it is the inherent word of God or it is not. To you it appears it is not.

I cannot discuss further if you ignore what is plainly written.

 

[nothead]

You are still ignoring Greek NT in English. It is you sir that said that it is written for common man to understand. Well common man has understood. He is God. That is what it says. Either it is the inherent word of God or it is not. To you it appears it is not.

I cannot discuss further if you ignore what is plainly written.

The ORIGINAL TEXT we consider inerrant. NOT translations of translations which can gloss, misconstrue and warp in meaning. If HO THEOS each and every time could be proven to mean God Almighty then you have a case. But you are 10% wrong with "elohim" and therefore all ENGLISH translations of the same verses in OT. Even extending into NT, the oral sayings translated into Koine.

If you believe the KJV or some English version of is INERRANT as plainly said, then you are in a special category of inerrancy. You are in fact ignoring several plain inserts, as well as a plethora of well meaning but inaccurate translations. Statistically not a great number, but within certain issues, including the deity of Jesus, important.

It does take an abstract inference here, to come to nothead's view, abeit. That sense is in which the OT meanings in Bible are foundationally true, even SHORING UP and FOUNDATIONALLY underpinning these New Covenant concepts of Grace.

The Law of Moses was affirmed by Jesus, including especially Shema. Consider Jesus' own view (I just said this one, eh?):

Jn 5

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[JM2C]

The Holy Spirit is derived or maybe rather SENT by the One True God.

His ontology or not, possibly a sent thingy which is not exactly from his being, although RUACH and WIND seems to imply this, especially the Ruach of God.

One thing is for sure, the Holy Spirit is derived from God. Not Him en whole or exhaustively.
Also the light and radiance associated with God is so very close to Him, it (Holy Spirit) may be Him in part.

There is no room for the word “maybe” here my friend, it’s either the Holy Spirit is God Himself or not. The Holy Spirit in the OT and the NT, are they one?

 

[JM2C]

Jew-view: see God juxtaposed with the Son of Man. Two Gods are not in view at all. Stephen did not see God standing next to God. Stephen saw the resurrected man standing next to GLORY.

How can you deny what king David saw in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This is what Isaiah saw in, Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

And Stephen in, Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And in John, Jn 12:41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

And back to Isaiah again Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me.

“who will go for Us?” Do you think that God was asking the angels or the heavenly hosts for advice here? NO!

Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?

The plural, [“who will go for Us”] suggests the fullness of his being was the ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" -ASV or English translation, but in Hebrew it’s very clear that trinity existed long before the N.T.;
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

There is no denying here of the Trinity my friend.

Here we have Isaiah, King David, John, Stephen, and even Moses saw the Lord Jesus as God.

 

[nothead]

How can you deny what king David saw in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

1) You deny the One Lord Theology of your partners in crime.
2) The right hand of God is not God. Otherwise the ones at Jesus left and right hands in heaven would be God.

I have already gone over this ad infinininitum. ADON can mean kings, masters, warlords, angels, rabbis, prophets.

And two Gods in Heaven was never said by any Jew author dead or alive.

This is what Isaiah saw in, Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Saw GLORY. This comes from YHWH Elohim as source.

And Stephen in, Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Yeah you missed it. SAW the GLORY OF GOD and Jesus standing NEXT TO IT.

And in John, Jn 12:41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

What did I just say? Are you paying attention?

And back to Isaiah again Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me.

“who will go for Us?” Do you think that God was asking the angels or the heavenly hosts for advice here? NO!

I always thought he was asking Isaiah. Maybe that's just me.

5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

So far the "I" is Isaiah. When did the narrative change the "I" and the "me" to someone else?

Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?

These imply deity of Jesus?

The plural, [“who will go for Us”] suggests the fullness of his being was the ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It does huh? How many Gods you got, up there yo brother?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" -ASV or English translation, but in Hebrew it’s very clear that trinity existed long before the N.T.;
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

Echad means a unity of "one" or "some" 7 out of 845 times. Less than one percent of the time, and I don't mean "less than some percent some of the time, sir." Have I said this on this forum yet? Methinks so. Are you listening? Get this straight. The PREDOMINANT meaning of "echad" is "one" or "first" or "unique as standing alone" or "singular." The 7 times Strong's relates SOME I am not sure I agree with either. In any case, you are very wrong as in very very wrong. Proof: the very first number a child learns in Hebrew is guess what? So then for the rest of his itty bitty life as well as for the rest of his LARGE ADULT life, guess what this number means to him?

There is no denying here of the Trinity my friend.

I think there is no denying you are upholding a myth. Santy Claus is another. The Tooth Fairy is another. Superman never was in real life. Neither Batman.

Get the drift, hombre. Clint Eastwood never killed nobody with a gun. Maybe with his flatulence.

Here we have Isaiah, King David, John, Stephen, and even Moses saw the Lord Jesus as God.

The first one, MOSES said there can be no other than the single one. Shema became the number one Law under the Sun under HIM. And if you don't believe me, look at Isa 45.

This is CONTEXT of Shema. "I am the One who brought you out of Egypt." (Context Deut). You shall have NO OTHER elohim to my presence."

First Command of the Ten, Deut context.

Isa 45 has over 50 SINGULAR pronouns describing God. And 8 TIMES He He He He says NO OTHER stands next to Him as equal.

And if you don't believe Moses how can you believe Jesus?

Jn 5

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[JM2C]

Originally Posted by JM2C
How can you deny what king David saw in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

1) You deny the One Lord Theology of your partners in crime.
2) The right hand of God is not God.

But God said He is God in Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Otherwise the ones at Jesus left and right hands in heaven would be God.

Where exactly did it say that there’s gonna be one on His left and one on His right hand in heaven? That’s not gonna happen my friend.

I have already gone over this ad infinininitum. ADON can mean kings, masters, warlords, angels, rabbis, prophets.

Not according the dead sea scroll. You still don’t understand, do you?


How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The Masoretes changed “ADNY/GOD” to “ADONI/MASTER” but the question is, why would God allow your interpretations of “ADON can mean kings, masters, warlords, angels, rabbis, prophets” to sit on His right hand side and called this mortal man “God” in Hebrews 1:8 “Your throne, O God”?


Can you imagine God, the creator of everything seen and unseen, would call a mortal man “God” “Your throne, O God” and allowed this mortal man to sit on His right hand side? There is no way.


PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND:

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.　


In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:　


"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."

Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

 

[JM2C]

This is what Isaiah saw in, Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Saw GLORY. This comes from YHWH Elohim as source.

”the Lord sitting upon a throne”

And Stephen in, Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Yeah you missed it. SAW the GLORY OF GOD and Jesus standing NEXT TO IT.

You are the one who missed the point here. The “GLORY OF GOD” is the “TRIUNE GOD”.

Stephen identified the “GLORY OF GOD” as the “TRIUNE GOD” AS THE “ONE GOD/JEHOVAH”.

If you read it carefully it says, “the glory of God” and “Jesus” standing on the right hand of “God”

Stephen saw the “GLORY OF GOD” OR the “TRIUNE GOD” and in the “TRIUNE GOD” he identified the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

This is the true shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah" “ONE TRIUNE GOD”. Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

 

[JM2C]

Echad means a unity of "one" or "some" 7 out of 845 times. Less than one percent of the time, and I don't mean "less than some percent some of the time, sir." Have I said this on this forum yet? Methinks so. Are you listening? Get this straight.
The PREDOMINANT meaning of "echad" is "one" or "first" or "unique as standing alone" or "singular."
The 7 times Strong's relates SOME I am not sure I agree with either.
In any case, you are very wrong as in very very wrong.

Why would Maimonides changed the “Echad/united one” to “Yachid/an absolute one”? Please tell me if you know.

 

[JM2C]

proof: The very first number a child learns in hebrew is guess what? So then for the rest of his itty bitty life as well as for the rest of his large adult life, guess what this number means to him?

ahhhhh lemethink…….a united one/echad?

 

[nothead]

There is no room for the word “maybe” here my friend, it’s either the Holy Spirit is God Himself or not. The Holy Spirit in the OT and the NT, are they one?

The OT used words like SHEKINAH to describe. The "Holy Spirit" is only within OT like three times. But the SHEKINAH was from the time of the early nomads in their mikshan tents, over the Tent of Meeting as a pillar of cloud, over the Ark, and then with the Ark in the Temple, on the face of Moses such that he was hard to look at, giving inspiration to the prophets etc.

 

[nothead]

Why would Maimonides changed the “Echad/united one” to “Yachid/an absolute one”? Please tell me if you know.

He was reacting to the evolved concept of a unified echad, among Christians, which was never the intent of God. YACHID was only used 11 times in the OT and was not an oft used word at all. God gave the Shema though, to depict a singular God. Peshat Law, plain and simple.

You THINK you can change the original meanings of scripture, but this is not kosher, desirable or even accurate. It is firmly within the bounds of heresy, sir.

 

[nothead]

ahhhhh lemethink…….a united one/echad?

There really is no such thing, in the Bible except as an exception to the rule. Consider a FOREST of trees. The word itself means many trees, but ONE FOREST would be a ONE singular Forest, not a compound "one" by itself.

 

[nothead]

”the Lord sitting upon a throne”



You are the one who missed the point here. The “GLORY OF GOD” is the “TRIUNE GOD”.

Stephen identified the “GLORY OF GOD” as the “TRIUNE GOD” AS THE “ONE GOD/JEHOVAH”.

If you read it carefully it says, “the glory of God” and “Jesus” standing on the right hand of “God”

Stephen saw the “GLORY OF GOD” OR the “TRIUNE GOD” and in the “TRIUNE GOD” he identified the Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

This is the true shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah" “ONE TRIUNE GOD”. Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

A TRIUNE God is not the God of Moses. It is something your fathers in the faith considered official in 421 A.D. Some 9 or 10 generations after the pristine first two.

 

[nothead]

Originally Posted by JM2C
How can you deny what king David saw in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
But God said He is God in Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Where exactly did it say that there’s gonna be one on His left and one on His right hand in heaven? That’s not gonna happen my friend.

Not according the dead sea scroll. You still don’t understand, do you?


How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The Masoretes changed “ADNY/GOD” to “ADONI/MASTER” but the question is, why would God allow your interpretations of “ADON can mean kings, masters, warlords, angels, rabbis, prophets” to sit on His right hand side and called this mortal man “God” in Hebrews 1:8 “Your throne, O God”?


Can you imagine God, the creator of everything seen and unseen, would call a mortal man “God” “Your throne, O God” and allowed this mortal man to sit on His right hand side? There is no way.


PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND:

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.　


In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:　


"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."

Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

So sayeth your sage, Adam Clarke? Do you believe the Bible? Then you don't believe in Jesus being God do you, sir? Ma'am or whichever gender you might be...I have MORE unitarian verses than you can ever refute...try this one 1 Tim 2

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

 

[nothead]

How can you deny what king David saw in Psalm 110:1 “The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY/GOD), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This is what Isaiah saw in, Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

And Stephen in, Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And in John, Jn 12:41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

And back to Isaiah again Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me.

“who will go for Us?” Do you think that God was asking the angels or the heavenly hosts for advice here? NO!

Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?

The plural, [“who will go for Us”] suggests the fullness of his being was the ultimate theological expression in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" -ASV or English translation, but in Hebrew it’s very clear that trinity existed long before the N.T.;
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah". Echad: a united ONE, and not Yachid: an only one.

There is no denying here of the Trinity my friend.

Here we have Isaiah, King David, John, Stephen, and even Moses saw the Lord Jesus as God.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion here.

Here we have Isaiah, King David, John, Stephen, and even Moses saw the Lord Jesus as God.

I deny ANY of them did. Moses would have to break the Great Law he himself gave, the Shema, to start.

Don't you know this is the very BASIS for Abrahamic Monotheism, which only Jewish gnostics like Philo the Jew, or KABBALISTS thought? All rabbinical Jews would tear their garments regarding such a notion. JESUS ratifies the Shema in Mk 12, agreeing with the scribe...NO OTHER BUT HE. Is HE a plural pronoun sir?

 

[JM2C]

new look here my friend

 

[JM2C]

He was reacting to the evolved concept of a unified echad, among Christians, which was never the intent of God.

So, he was reacting to the “truth/Echad” and changed this “truth/Echad” to a “lie/Yachid”.

You THINK you can change the original meanings of scripture, but this is not kosher, desirable or even accurate. It is firmly within the bounds of heresy, sir.

I thought it was Maimonides who did change the original meaning of “Echad” to “Yachid” to make it look like an “only one/Yachid God” instead of the true meaning “the united ONE/Echad”.

 

[nothead]

So, he was reacting to the “truth/Echad” and changed this “truth/Echad” to a “lie/Yachid”.

The truth is, echad means one, ordinally first, singular, alone and unique, dominantly and of a UNITY only 7 out of 952 times according to Strong's.

.07 percent. Less than 1% of the time. You really think God gives this meaning for the Greatest Law under the sun? Your God is confusing to us, sir.

I thought it was Maimonides who did change the original meaning of “Echad” to “Yachid” to make it look like an “only one/Yachid God” instead of the true meaning “the united ONE/Echad”.

See above. I rest my case. Hang on to your less than one percentile possible case. Hang on for your life, since you are a stubborn being, clinging to superstitions, hopeless causes, and imaginary fantasies. Just for the halibut, since this was what you were fed from infancy?

 

[nothead]

new look here my friend

You look the same to me...?

 

[LightTraveler]

You people make things much more complicated than they need to be. No wonder so many are turned off by even the notion of religion and spirituality. The truth of the title in and of itself is correct. Jesus isn't God Himself. Nor did he ever claim to be. Jesus is the first-born son of the Creator, and thus, his deputy on earth. His frontman. His captain. The one who speaks for God on earth.